Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Can any of us say the same?
You can live on your knees, or die on your feet. You can be safe, or you can be free.
A man chooses. A slave obeys."
The Southern Review articles of Dr. Albert Taylor Bledsoe would often express “in vigorous language…the best types of literature of the conservative point of view” from the South. In battling against the inevitable tendencies of modernity changing the postwar South, he reminded Southerners that their civilization was one to document, cherish and perpetuate.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Albert Taylor Bledsoe Vindicates the South:
“The most indefatigable champion of the Southern cause was the Southern Review, established January, 1867, by Alfred Taylor Bledsoe, formerly professor of mathematics in the University of Virginia and the author of the noteworthy book entitled “Is Davis a Traitor?” A man of undoubted intellectual power and with remarkable energy and resourcefulness, he had already during the war, by his studies in the British Museum, made himself familiar with the first hand sources necessary for the study of early American history.
He brought back into the South the point of view of John C. Calhoun and gave forth the arguments in favor of secession with searching logic and a scholarship that was more exact than that of the great statesman himself. He conceived it to be his duty through the Review to give permanent statements to the ideas that had been fought for by the Southern people. He would not let any criticism of his course to change him in his desire to set forth the Southern point of view.
“Shall we bury in the grave of the grandest cause that has ever perished on earth, all the little stores of history and philosophy which a not altogether idle life has enabled us to enmass, and so leave the just cause, merely because it has fallen, to go without our humble advocacy? We would rather die.”
He quoted with great gusto the words of Robert E. Lee: “Doctor, you must take care of yourself; you have a great work to do; we all look to you for our vindication.” None of the discouragement incident to the management of the Review or threatened poverty could for one moment cause him to swerve from his frequently expressed object. In a long article in Vol. VIII, in pleading with the Southern people to stand by him in the fight, he says:
“To abandon The Southern Review would be like the pain of death to me. It is the child of my affections. Money is not my object. I am willing to work for the South; nay, I am willing to be a slave for the South. Nothing but an unconquerable zeal in the cause of the South and of the truth, could have sustained us under the heavy pressure of its doubts, its difficulties, its trials, and its vexations in spirit.”
He has no sympathy for modern democracy, for to him it was the child of infidelity. He is opposed to all the tendencies of modern science, for it tends to destroy the faith of mankind. He is opposed to industrialism, looking upon it as the enemy to all that is chivalric and beautiful in civilization. He will have nought to do with German philosophy or German criticism, for they are both the inaugurators of the reign of radicalism and rationalism.”
(The South in the Building of the Nation, Volume VII, Edwin Mims, Southern Historical Publication Society, 1909, pp. 463-465)
Albert Taylor Bledsoe Vindicates the South
Imprisoned and manacled in Fortress Monroe, ironically named for a President from the South, Jefferson Davis’s only consolation was the leather-bound Bible given him by wife Varina. His case for alleged treason was never called, though he repeatedly asked for an opportunity to prove his innocence, which if brought to trial, would have condemned the Northern government for treason against the States.
Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
Jefferson Davis’ Prison Bible:
“It is the Bible that gave great comfort to the soul of Jefferson Davis during his prison life at Fortress Monroe….From letters passed between the prison authorities and Mrs. Davis, we also learn that permission was given her to send her husband a Bible. With some other things for which he had asked after he had been confined for some time.
It was to this little prayer book the prisoner turned again and again when racked by such mental and physical suffering as one of his temperament must have endured. It must have been on such occasion that he wrote upon a fly-leaf:
“In all their afflictions he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them.” (Isa. 63.)
“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.” (1 John 4.)
“And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.” (Rev. 22.)
A little marker rests at the eleventh chapter of Job, and a page is turned down at the third chapter of the Epistle of Paul to the Philippians.
The Davis children were in the charge of Mrs. Davis’s mother, Mrs. Howell, who had taken them to Toronto, Canada, where Mr. & Mrs. Davis joined them when he left Fortress Monroe. The noise of the village [of Lennoxville] irritated Mr. Davis in his nerve-wracked condition, and he, as well as Mrs. Davis, spent most of the time at [the nearby Cummings family home] “Rock Grove.”
The day they were at “Rock Grove” for the last time, Mr. Davis turned to his wife and said: “Varina, what is the most valuable thing I have left in the world?” She answered, “Why Jeff – your Bible.” He said, “Yes, my Bible.” And shortly after that he sent it to [Jennie Cummings] with this inscription on a fly-leaf:
“To Miss Cummings, as a token of sincere regard and esteem of her friend, Jeff’n Davis. Lennoxville, 17 July, 1868.”
After [the death of Jennie Cummings, it was passed] reverently to the Confederate Museum, as a precious relic of the good and great man….”
(Jefferson Davis in Canada, Virginia Frazer Boyle, Confederate Veteran, March 1929, pp. 89-92)
Jefferson Davis’ Prison Bible
PREAMBLE to the 1977 Soviet Constitution slightly modified to American standards
The Great November Democratic Revolution, made by the workers and peasants of United States under the leadership of the US Government headed by its Presidents, overthrew capitalist and landowner rule, broke the fetters of oppression, established the dictatorship of the voter, and created the American state, a new type of state, the basic instrument for defending the gains of the revolution and for building government intervention and democracy. Humanity thereby began the epoch-making turn from capitalist to government intervention.
After achieving victory in the elections and repulsing free market intervention, the American government carried through far-reaching social and economic transformations, and put an end once and for all to exploitation of man by man, antagonisms between classes, and strive between nationalities. The unification of the American Republics in the Union of American Democratic Republics multiplied the forces and opportunities of the peoples of the country in the building of government intervention. Social ownership of the means of production and genuine democracy for the working masses were established. For the first time in the history of mankind a democratic society was created.
The strength of government intervention was vividly demonstrated by the immortal feat of the American people and their Armed Forces in achieving their historic victory in the Great Cold War. This victory consolidated the influence and international standing of the American Union and created new opportunities for growth of the forces of government intervention, national liberation, democracy, and peace throughout the world.Continuing their creative endeavors, the working people of the American Union have ensured rapid, all-round development of the country and steady improvement of the democratic system.
Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling Thursday in NFIB v. Sebelius is a bitter loss for constitutional conservatives, delivered to us by a judicial Benedict Arnold. Forget the so-called long term victory contained in the commerce clause limitations. There’ s no denying that Roberts’ majority opinion represents a clear judicial defeat for defenders of the Constitution and individual liberty.
Roberts knew he was conjuring up a decision that would make the American people wretch. But judicial activism to limit the power of the individual and extend the powers of the federal government has been going on since the Supreme Court first caved to FDR’ s power grabs in a series of capitulations that culminated in the odious 1942 Wickard v. Filburn decision.
Now comes the equally odious NFIB v. Sebelius decision, in which Roberts rewrote a law from the bench. The Chief Justice wasn’t writing a legal opinion. He offered a political solution. More importantly, he just told us which team he’s playing on. He’s with the anti-constitutionalists. His legacy as their champion is secure.
Roberts’ decision to call the individual mandate a “tax” placed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in violation of the Constitution’s Origination Clause. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 states: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
The legislative history of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is clear. The only thing about the law that “originated” in the House of Representatives was the bill number, H.R. 3590.
More @ Breitbart
"I really hope my colleague doesn't decide to leave the (medical) profession ... but I wouldn't blame him if he did."
Paul Hsieh at We Stand FIRM shares a sobering account of one doctor who is grappling with the realities of government-directed health care.
He's not alone. And the patients left behind won't be either.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Larry Kissell, whose rural North Carolina district has become even more Republican, is bucking his party again in two high-profile congressional votes.
Last week, Kissell was one of 17 Democrats who voted with Republicans to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress. And next week, he plans to vote with them again to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law.
“I’ve heard from hundreds and hundreds of people from my district about their opposition to the health care law,” Kissell told the Observer Monday. “I voted against it originally and I will vote to repeal it.”
Kissell also said he doesn’t plan to endorse Obama for re-election and isn’t sure he’ll attend his party’s national convention in Charlotte.
More @ Charlotte Observer
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/02/3358669/democrat-kissell-bucks-party-on.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court health care ruling, the early conventional wisdom was that an unfavorable health care ruling at the court would be good for Republicans politically, even as it was a serious policy setback for conservatives. But that’s not shaping up to be the case. Mitt Romney, after giving a brief statement decrying the decision, has been virtually silent on criticizing the health care law. He’s been on vacation and his campaign has been giving off clear signals that it doesn’t want to make health care a major part of the election….
For an issue that’s supposedly potent against Democrats, Romney’s campaign is declaring a cease fire. This, even as the law polls unfavorably and it proved to be a motivating force for Republicans and disaffected independents in the 2010 midterms.
It’s becoming clear that Romney has decided to focus on the economy at the expense of everything else, even issues that could play to his political benefit….
Needless to say, the headline and verbiage inflamed many on the right side, but when I read the article, it looked like very little fact reporting and a lot of conclusions.
The “declaring a ceasefire” language was that of the author, not the Romney campaign, and the embedded hyperlink where those words appeared was to a Washington Post article about how Romney supposedly “sided” with Obama about whether the mandate was a tax (see my post yesterday).
The Romney campaign is denying any ceasefire, via Byron York:
So is the Romney campaign, in fact, declaring a “cease-fire” on Obamacare? No, no, no, says Romney spokesman Ryan Williams. “From our perspective, Obamacare has been and will continue to be a central issue in the campaign,” says Williams. “It presents voters with a bright line that divides the two candidates. Gov. Romney is going to repeal Obamacare and President Obama is going to keep it. There is a clear choice in November.”
I have been pretty strong in my criticism of the Obamacare decision, and during the primaries was pretty harsh on what Romneycare might mean for the general election.
But we don’t need concern trolling journalists sowing discord on the right. Don’t let them turn us into a circular firing squad.
To the Obama EPA – Iowa farmers are the enemy.
Midwest farmers were outraged to hear that the Obama EPA was spying on ranches in surveilance planes. Rep. Tom Latham sent a letter to the EPA demanding answers,“No federal agency has the right to treat the American farmer like the Taliban.
The AP reported:
Midwest ranchers have never been enamored with environmental regulators, but they really began to complain after learning that federal inspectors were flying over their land to look for problems.
The Environmental Protection Agency flies over power plants and other facilities nationwide to identify potential air, water and land pollution. It began using aerial surveillance in the Midwest in 2010 to check farms for violations of federal clean water regulations.
Ranchers who object to the program said they’re not trying to hide anything. It’s the quiet approach the EPA took with the program designed to spot illegal disposal of animal waste that they find upsetting. Most were not even aware of the flyovers until regional EPA officials mentioned it at a meeting three months ago.
“For me, it just creeps into the ‘Big Brother is watching you’ area, to where the government just feels like it’s getting more and more intrusive,” said Buck Wehrbein, who manages a cattle feeding operation in Mead, Neb., about 30 miles west of Omaha.
EPA officials explained during a meeting with ranchers in West Point, Neb., that they lease small planes that fly EPA staffers over cattle operations. The staffers take photographs as they seek evidence of illegal animal waste running off into rivers and streams.Ranchers complained to their members of Congress, who responded angrily and then grew even more annoyed by what they considered the EPA’s sluggish response to their inquiries for information about the flights.
The moral of this story is: Don’t try to hijack a plane in China.
Two would-be plane hijackers were beaten to death by passengers and crew aboard a flight bound for the regional Chinese capital of Urumqi on Friday, The Global Times reports. The men died in the hospital from the injuries they suffered at the hands of those whom they thought would be their victims.
There were a total of six men involved in the foiled plot to hijack the Tianjin Airlines flight. All of the men were reportedly Uyghurs, a local Muslim ethnic minority.
Less than 10 minutes after the plane took off from Hotan airport in southwest Xinjiang, China at 12:25 a.m., the men, aged 20 to 36, announced their intentions to horrified passengers and attempted to storm the cockpit using a “broken crutch” made of aluminum as a weapon.
But before they could get to the cockpit, they were tackled by passengers and crew members who tied them up with belts and restrained them until the plane made it back to the airport about 20 minutes later. There were reportedly 92 passengers and 9 crew members on the flight.
More @ The Blaze
Officer Jeffrey Holmes turned himself in on Monday. He is facing two felony counts of acceding to corruption by a public servant.When the investigation began in April, he was taken off patrol and moved into an administrative assignment.
When the second victim came forward in May, he was suspended with pay. Now that he’s been charged, he is suspended without pay.
More @ MSNBC
The day Alexandra Pennell addressed an anti-hate rally at Central Connecticut State University about the anti-gay messages scrawled on her door, police had begun to question her claims.
Twice the video surveillance system placed in Pennell's room to help police identify the person responsible for scrawling the notes had been disabled, in one case just before a note was slid under Pennell's dorm room door.
Police say only after they set up a second camera in a hall closet — a camera that Pennell did not know about — did they learn the truth: Pennell had been writing the notes herself.
Answers that usually involve blaming dead white guys or ones that are still kicking.
But is politically correct silliness really what Chicago needs right now? Has the rhetoric of civil rights victimization from Rev. Jesse Jackson and Fr. Pfleger benefitted anyone in the black community?
Or do Chicagoans really need an unvarnished reality check from their public officials?
If it is the later, Chicago residents may have their work cut out for them.
Recently, Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy joined black political leaders and community activists in a live radio forum, hosted by Clear Channel-owned WGCI-FM, to discuss Chicago’s violence epidemic and what - or who - is really to blame.
However, when it comes to the causes of violence in Chicago’s black community, talk of racism is never far behind.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s newly minted police chief has become a quick study to the "Chicago Way,” which, apparently, requires McCarthy to engage in politically correct mumbo jumbo whenever possible.
The Chicago radio forum was no exception.
When asked about the “gap” between law enforcement and the black community, McCarthy reached back 400 years for an answer.
More @ The Washington Times
The Federal Reserve is an enormously destructive and unaccountable force in both the U.S. economy and the greater global economy. Federal Reserve policies affect average Americans far more than fiscal, spending, and tax policies legislated by Congress; indeed the Fed "spends" more than Congress when it creates trillions of new dollars on its balance sheet to bail out favored financial institutions.
For several decades the Fed has relentlessly increased the supply of US dollars (both real and electronic) and kept interest rates artificially low. These monetary policies punish thrift, erode the value of savings, and harm older Americans living on fixed incomes and the poor. The Fed's expansion of the money supply, combined with artificially low interest rates, creates destructive cycles of malinvestment. This results in housing, stock market, and employment booms and busts that destroy lives.
I guess that doesn’t surprise me.
Also, does Christie thread the needle on the tax/penalty issue? Or just muddle things even more? (not his fault, really)
Sure. Yeah. I mean, listen, I thought all along that it was a tax. And I don’t think it’s exclusively a tax or a penalty. It’s both. And there’s no question in my mind about that, it’s both. They’re meaning to penalize people and they argue in the Supreme Court it was a tax. Now, of course, you argued in the campaign and forward that it wasn’t, but he’s now in a bind. He’s in a bind as to what this is all about. But I think there’s no question that it’s both. It’s meant to penalize people and it is a tax. There’s no doubt. Because
we have[it's meant] to pay for the government program.
The Charlotte city government has issued permits to various groups to protest at designated areas and to speak at a city-provided platform during the Democratic National Convention in September.
Here’s a partial list of the groups with permits to protest, with links to their home pages:
Raleigh FIST, which believes “the only way to achieve true liberation for all peoples throughout the world is through socialism” and is therefore “dedicated to achieving such a society by building a multi-national, multi-gendered organization of revolutionary youth.” They even come out and admit they intend to achieve that by “overthrowing bourgeois society for a socialist future.” (They seem to mean it, too – check out their tribute to mass-murderer Che Guevera.)
Students for a Democratic Society of Chapel Hill, UNC Asheville, and NC State. You remember the SDS? That was radical bomber Bill Ayers’s group back in the 60s. And their radical rhetoric hasn’t changed a bit since then:
Oppressed people are at the forefront of movements for liberation. We understand that our work must target structures of domination in order to build powerful diverse movements for change. We realize that lines of power cut deep in our society, and we must be grounded in the work of combating systems of white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism, heterosexism, transphobia, and the many other forms of oppression thoughtfully and strategically.
And let’s not forget the Occupy movement, which promises to be a major presence in Charlotte come September. In the Observer article, Occupy Charlotte member Michael Zytkow expressed his disgust with the city’s rules:
“The parade route is abysmal,” he said. “We essentially want the right to speak at a zone that would not be far from the convention.”
“We denounce the government telling us where we can or cannot march,” Zytkow said.
Think these cats are going to behave?
Oh, and I almost forgot – 20,000 Muslims will also converge on Charlotte to host their own events during the DNC, including a massive public prayer.
I don’t foresee any possible problems. Do you?
Andy Griffith’s broad shoulders carried a heavy load for more than 50 years. In 1960, he created an iconic fictional character so noble that today, church groups still seek moral guidance in Sheriff Andy Taylor’s every televised word, deed and gesture.
And over the years, when Griffith insisted that Mayberry, the perfect little town he invented, was absolutely not based on his hometown of Mount Airy, N.C., fans nodded, winked, said “Sure, Andy, whatever you say,” and went right on believing what they wanted to believe.
What they wanted to believe was that around the next bend or over the next hill was a place like Mayberry and a man as fair, wise and decent as Sheriff Andy.
More @ N&O
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/03/2176821/north-carolina-legend-andy-griffith.html#storylink=cpy
President Obama remains marginally ahead of Mitt Romney in a new national CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday, although Romney leads Obama in the 15 states identified by the network as battleground states. Obama leads Romney nationally, 49 percent to 46 percent, with 4 percent of those surveyed saying they would vote for another candidate or neither candidate. That is inside the poll's margin of error, and it is identical to the 49 percent to 46 percent lead Obama had in the previous poll, conducted in late May...However, in the 15 states CNN calls its battleground states — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin — Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent. Notably, though, the CNN/ORC International group includes three states thought to be comfortably in the Romney column this cycle: Arizona, Indiana, and Missouri.
More @ Townhall
On patrol during his third tour in April, Mills put his bag down on an improvised explosive device, which tore through the decorated high school athlete's muscular 6-foot-3 frame. Within 20 seconds of the IED explosion, a fast-working medic affixed tourniquets to all four of Mills' limbs to ensure he wouldn't bleed to death.
"I was yelling at him to get away from me," Mills remembers. "I told him to leave me alone and go help my guys.
"And he told me: 'With all due respect, Sgt. Mills, shut up. Let me do my job.'"
The medic was able to save Mills' life but not his limbs. Today, the 25-year-old Mills is a quadruple amputee, one of only five servicemen from any military branch to have survived such an injury during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Maria Tolleson, a spokeswoman at U.S. Army Medical Command. And instead of serving alongside his unit, he has been spending his days based at Walter Reed Medical Center, working on rehabilitation after the accident that dramatically altered the trajectory of his life.
Mills doesn't dwell on that. Sitting in his hospital bed, he describes his situation plainly: "I just had a bad day at work."
More @ WRAL
|Whitehall Memorial Park Dedication Service|
"I say we cannot know your suffering, but this we do know; We love and honour you, veterans, and are justly proud of the heritage you have given us. Just so long as warm blood flows in the veins of man, so long will the words 'Confederate Veteran' cause that blood to tingle with glorious pride, and, if there be one among us, born in our glorious Southland who is not so thrilled, every drop of stagnant blood proclaims him bastard to the South-a coward to all the world."
Joseph Powell Pippen, Esq.
May 10, 1911
Confederate Memorial Day
This e-mail is, unfortunately, far later than good social propriety would dictate. My intent was to answer your e-mail much sooner than now. However, personal and professional responsibilities as well as divisional SCV matters severely monopolized my attention during the past two months. I took the liberty to respond to you via a “Bcc” out of consideration for your privacy. The following comments are primarily in response to your previous e-mails (both pro and con) regarding the contentious opening of The Museum of the Confederacy in Appomattox, VA and the participation of the Maryland Division Color Guard in that event. I include a few compatriots as recipients as a courtesy and not necessarily in response to e-mail. Of the e-mails and phone calls I received on the topic, none were rude or ungentlemanly; this is a credit to the men in the SCV. Some were terser than others. All of the comments, though, highlighted the discordant nature of the matter as well as the passion we share for our heritage. Furthermore, I appreciated the reasoned opinions of our compatriots within the Maryland Division and around our Confederacy. As is to be expected with any controversy, the observations and behavior of a small minority of individuals was tasteless and inappropriate at best. I give such effluvium little credence.
No issue consumed more of my attention in shorter period of time than that of the MOC. However, I would appreciate the opportunity to explain our perspective then and our relationship (or severing thereof) with that institution now. While you may or may not agree with the rationale, I hope to clarify our position and concerns during the week preceding the dedication. My intent is not to re-ignite debate, but to respond, albeit tardily, to your sincere sentiments.
About six months before the event, the MOC requested the Maryland Division Color Guard to serve as the Confederate Color Guard for the occasion. Without condition or reservation, we made a commitment to be there. For the compatriots in our division, this was an opportunity to honor our ancestors by dedicating a facility that contains their earthly belongings. The event was added to the color guard schedule; promulgated to all usual recipients both within and beyond Maryland; and promoted without further comment or controversy. About three weeks prior to the March 31st opening, two Maryland Division camps hosted MOC CEO Waite Rawls as their speaker. Despite some subsequent rumor and on-going concerns regarding the propriety of splitting the collection across four museums, I and other division members were unaware of prior duplicity exhibited by the museum’s management. When Mr. Rawls announced that a Maryland state flag was incorporated in the exterior flag display, the response within the division was animated to say the least. Rarely, if ever, is our state recognized by the inclusion of a Maryland flag alongside those of the 13 Confederate states.
Amid our jubilation, however, nobody thought to ask the obvious, “What Confederate flag(s) will fly outside the museum?” There was a general assumption that a Confederate flag would be a component of any display. Ultimately for me, this was also a “lesson learned” – ask, even though it may seem obvious. Later, we received as yet unsubstantiated reports that no Confederate flag would be flown. To our disgust and frustration, we eventually confirmed this fact. A few of our members, who previously made substantial donations to the museum, personally discussed the matter with Mr. Rawls and other board members in an effort to change the policy. I discussed the matter with the division’s color sergeant, heritage defense officer, two judge advocates, chaplain, and a past national chaplain-in-chief. I also received input from compatriots around the Maryland Division. Furthermore, I had an extensive and enlightening conversation that week with ANV Commander Earnest who provided me with a substantive history regarding the relationship between the SCV and the MOC. I wish I had known of the depth of animosity between these two entities sooner.
The consensus among the officers with whom I spoke and my own opinion are summed up simply: our word. We gave our word to be there and that was our bond. We agreed that we should fulfill our commitment. Contrary to what anyone may believe, we considered it a commitment not to Mr. Rawls, not to the MOC Board of Directors, nor to any corporeal entity. It was not a decision that we made frivolously or without spirited discussion. Despite the odious nature of the board’s decision, we agreed that it was our obligation to attend for the purposes of representing the memory our Confederate ancestors; ensuring that Confederate flags were present and displayed in a dignified manner at the dedication of a building containing the personal belongings, uniforms, and flags of our ancestors; honoring our Maryland flag with its Confederate Botony Cross and lineage; and using this opportunity where possible to highlight the egregious reprehensibility of the museum’s decision. Some of our division compatriots with personal contacts in the museum (now “former” members of the MOC) again tried to effect a change in this foolish decision. Prior to the opening ceremony, several of our members went as far as to offer to finance an exterior Confederate flag display.
Feedback I received from compatriots in the Maryland Division ran about 80% in favor of attending. Feedback I received from outside the Maryland Division ran about 90% against attending. One compatriot in another division called me simply to ask our reason for attending. About two days before departing for Virginia on a most private matter and four days before the museum’s opening, I received Commander Givens’ “strongly urge” request not to attend. As a division commander, I appreciated the latitude his directive offered and fully understood the consequences of attendance. Obviously this was a lose-lose situation. If we attend, we certainly would be criticized for "supporting" the MOC. If we did not attend, we would abrogate our commitment. I considered the former choice to be the more palatable of two unpleasant options. Given the discretion his directive allowed, the feedback I noted previously, and my own view of the matter, I made the final decision to allow our color guard to attend.
In addition to the reasons noted above, one other consideration did have some bearing on the matter. This controversy came as an unwelcome and unexpected surprise after many of our division compatriots made lodging reservations, arranged for child care, and scheduled work leave in advance. Most of these compatriots also planned to make this an extended weekend family event and departed early in the week to tour Virginia with the MOC as the primary objective. Our color guard, like many of our SCV color guards I am sure, tries to make our events family affairs.
Subsequent to this travesty, several Maryland division members highlighted a few examples of behavior which demonstrate that not every so-called “Southron” in attendance exercised the gentlemanliness with which you expressed your concerns to me. Some of the sophomoric behavior was captured on video prior to and during the opening ceremonies. There was also an abundance of execrable posts on Face Book demonstrating a level of immaturity I never expected to see among alleged SCV compatriots or pro-Confederate supporters. The word “scalawag” was affixed to our division color sergeant’s picture and posted on one entry. Some SCV members demanded that members of the color guard and division officers be expelled from the SCV. Few men devote more time, talent, and treasure to our heritage than our color sergeant, the members of the Maryland Division Color Guard, and our division officers. In a particularly prepubescent display by alleged “adults” at the dedication, there was name-calling as color guard members arrived – something, no doubt, quite audible to the general public. When I consider that our Maryland Division Color Guard participates in nearly 30 events throughout the year to represent our SCV, our ancestors, and our heritage honorably in every climate – meteorological and political, it truly disgusted me to witness the level of vitriol toward Maryland Division compatriots. I originally intended to provide a more exhaustive list here; but, no longer consider it worthy of attention.
There is one notable subset of individuals, however, who deserve recognition for the deficit in the courage of their convictions. After the museum doors opened, some of the first people to enter as soon as the crowds dissipated were none other than the most vociferous protestors. A few even had the temerity to post on-line pictures as they stood next to a Confederate flag under which their ancestor fought. The only word for that is hypocrisy. The Maryland Division honored its commitment; these hypocrites were grand-standing outside and slithering inside. Such behavior speaks for itself.
With this MOC controversy hopefully behind us, how will the Maryland Division respond to future requests? There is no question in my mind or that of any Maryland Division compatriot that the MOC should have a Confederate flag prominently displayed outside the museum. With the information we have now and being acutely aware of the history of intractable anti-Confederate positions of the MOC regarding public displays of the Confederate flag, I will neither personally nor officially as division commander support The Museum of the Confederacy – financially or otherwise - until such time as a Confederate flag is a permanent and unmistakably visible fixture in any exterior display of flags. Furthermore, while I cannot dictate the decisions of individual compatriots to support or not to support the MOC, I will oppose any further support or promotion by the Maryland Division of the museum given its record of historical revisionism, political correctness, and public contempt for Confederate symbols.
One final point – and this precedes Commander Givens’ and Commander Earnest’s tenure – I believe that the SCV failed to put a “dog in the museum fight”. I do not know how many SCV compatriots were members of the MOC. I was until this year. My camp always encouraged MOC membership – until the flag controversy. However, our collective SCV membership in the MOC has obviously never been sufficient to influence the direction of the museum or to alter the irrational decisions by its management. Over the years if the SCV from top down encouraged compatriots to join, we might have enjoyed greater influence over MOC activities. It is not unlike a gun club to which I previously belonged; they required each member to have an NRA membership. Such a requirement would be debate in and of itself and I do not suggest it. In the following examples, though, if the given number of compatriots (assuming ~30,000 SCV members) had donated the noted amounts each year, SCV influence would not be insignificant:
· 1000 compatriots (~3.3% of SCV membership) x $1000 = $1,000,000
· 5000 compatriots (~17% of SCV membership) x $500 = $2,500,000
· 10,000 compatriots (~33% of SCV membership) x $100 = $1,000,000
Despite vagaries of the economy, these donation amounts are not unreasonable. But, if the SCV could have pointed to 1000, 5000, or 10,000 MOC dues paying compatriots, museum representatives would probably have listened a bit more attentively. It is a moot point, of course. Fortunately, we now have “The Confederate Museum” at Elm Springs as a welcome alternative.
I thank you for your input and respect the sincerity of your convictions. I sincerely believe that we all try to do what is best to honor the service, lives, and memories of our Southern forebears. Even though you still may not agree with our/my decision, I hope it will at least explain the rationale for the participation of our Maryland Division color guard and how we as a division expect to address any similar situation in the future. Thank you.
American by birth ... Southern by the Grace of God,
Commander - SCV Maryland Division
Adjutant - SCV Trimble Camp #1836
2131 Agrippas Court
Eldersburg, MD 21784
A response to your observations regarding the MOC
1776 was the first great secession and 1861 was the second. I for one am damn well ready for the Secession III. For any who do not know me do not get on a Disgruntled Southron tirade. I am a proud native son of the Live Free or Die state and always will be. We had a saying there that just because a cat crawls in the oven and has kittens that don't give you the right to call them biscuits. So I will never claim to be a true southron nor should my children nor my grandchildren.
But I have lived all over this once great nation and my wife and I chose NC to be our last stand and so here we are and here we will make our stand for Liberty. As stated in the Declaration the South had endured one too many transgressions from an over reaching centralized federal government influenced by economic powers of the day to remain any longer in a union they entered into of their own free will and therefore had every right to dissolve. They made every attempt to resolve the issues at hand but to no avail.
To me this is the real answer. Nullification and secession. We are free to work to convince our fellow sovereign citizens to dissolve our ties with Mordor on the Potomac and go our own way and form new compacts with other free and independent sovereign states. There is nothing to be saved in DC. They have broken the oath they took and never meant to uphold. It is not even worth the effort to bring them to trial, convict them and carry out the sentence treason should carry. Forget them unless they think that Lincoln set a precedence for preserving the Union. Just as if Great Britain had won the initial War for Independence (Secession I) an issue of Liberty and Freedom that is suppressed by force and settled in blood will never be settled and will rise again.
“A question settled by violence or in disregard of law must remain unsettled forever.”
"The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena.
---Address to the Mississippi legislature - 16 years after the wars end.
"When certain sovereign and independent states form a union with limited powers for some general purpose, and any one or more of them, in the progress of time, suffer unjust and oppressive grievances for which there is no redress but in a withdrawal from the association, is such withdrawal an insurrection? If so, then of what advantage is a compact of union to states? Within the Union are oppressions and grievances; the attempt to go out brings war and subjugation. The ambitious and aggressive states obtain possession of the central authority which, having grown strong in the lapse of time, asserts its entire sovereignty over the states.
Whichever of them denies it and seeks to retire is declared to be guilty of insurrection, its citizens are stigmatized as "rebels", as if they revolted against a master, and a war of subjugation is begun. If this action is once tolerated, where will it end? Where is constitutional liberty? What strength is there in bills of rights-in limitation of power? What new hope for mankind is to be found in written constitutions, what remedy which did not exist under kings of emperors? If the doctrines thus announced by the government of the United States are conceded, then look through either end of the political telescope, and one sees only an empire, and the once famous Declaration of Independence trodden in the dust of as a "glittering generality," and the compact of the union denounced as a "flaunting lie".
Those who submit to such consequence without resistance are not worthy the liberties and rights to which they were born, and deserve to be made slaves. Such must be the verdict of mankind."
Jefferson Davis 1808 - 1898